I did not really know where to put this post - I hope the Sandbox is OK.

For a long time I thought that the spirit and soul were the same thing . . . A few years ago I was told that they were not . . .The explanation I received a few years ago went something like this . . . the body is the soul and the spirit is its driving force . . .

Today I think I received a better description - so here I place my initial interpretation for criticism.

The way I understand it we have a physical body which I learnt many years ago could be bought from a chemical supply shop for very cheap - I think it was less than one hundred dollars. The physical body needs to be animated somehow - a problem that I am led to believe science is still struggling with.

Now I am guessing that the soul has something to do with this physical body being animated . . .. . . but what I have interpreted is that the soul is the seat of the consciousness.

I believe in GOD and I am not sure whether you do or not and I am certain James' concept of GOD is different to my own.

WendyDarling wrote:We, our conscious spark of life, are found in the entity of our soul, and our meat sacks move while our soul entity wears the flesh housing (that is not conscious, merely flesh clothing allowing different forms of sensory input and communication exchanges). Two bodies, one mind working both. Am I being clear enough?

You are definitely being clear enough - I understand exactly what you mean. You and I differ a little on the subject of the soul. I do agree with the idea of the soul as the seat of the consciousness. I also differ a little with James on the topic of soul but I did find some meaning in his ideas of the spirit and the soul. I also find a great deal of meaning in your ideas of the spirit and the soul.

James S Saint wrote:The scriptural word "spirit" merely refers to "behavior". Anywhere a particular behavior arises, the same "spirit" appears (just an issue of definition of the words). The eternal portion of a person is in two forms, "soul" and "spirit". The soul is merely the conceptual definition of the person, their conceptual essence (e.g. "a good person who likes fishing and chasing hot women").

I am pleased that the three of us agree that the soul and spirit are two different things. I also notice that we all like this essence thingy too - I will be returning to that soon too in the what of you essence? thread.

James S Saint wrote:All concepts are always eternal, thus all souls are eternal. A perfect circle is always what a perfect circle is and any particular kind of person is always that particular kind of person. A person can change which kind they are until the person's body dies. Then they are forevermore whatever they last were.

The three of us agree with the concept of eternal.

James S Saint wrote:Spirits are a little different in that a spirit, a behavior, can come and go. A spirit is physical and literally moves about (and yes some form of body is required). That is where you get those ghost stories. A "ghost" is a "ghe-host", a "spirit host", or "the behavior that occupies the body" and in computers would be their "programming". These days, you are more likely to hear of it as "an attitude". Behaviors and attitudes pop up all over and wheresoever one of them reflects a familiar tone, therein lies a familiar spirit, perhaps of one once loved (or hated). The universe can never be totally void of any spirit that has ever been, nor of any that will ever be, thus in a mathematically provable sense, everyone's spirit shall always be eternal. The question is within what environment will they struggle (aka "Heavenly or Hellish")?

I am so glad that something is mathematically provable. Here we are speaking of eternal again and I also detect some essence tucked away in there too.

. . . then why do we not have reason to believe that we have been here before ? . .

. . . and why do we have no reason to believe that we will be here again?

Given the number of possible outcomes using the same stuff contained in our universe now - then it is possible that all of the stars and planets and other bodies could just as easily have taken a different configuration - which means that each time of return could be different also.

I have my reservations on a cyclical time however - eternal return is not necessarily dependent on time either - this may be basing the idea around people but a leap in imagination could make a universe reconfigure without people.

So I am saying eternal reconfiguration - which also allows room for eternal rebirth et cetera.

James S Saint wrote:There is an infinity of you present at all times. Exact duplicates of you down below the subatomic level exist throughout the universe. Each one diverges from being identical to you as time passes. But also as time passes, another exact duplicate forms from something that wasn't quite exact yet. You will always be present in the universe, as will I and every other creature ever born. There is no escape from that conclusion once you know the mathematics of it (which isn't all that hard).

So yes, you are "reborn". And even more, you are being reborn every instant into different locations throughout the universe. Your "soul" and also, separately, your "spirit", is truly eternal and ever present. And then of course, you are never exactly identical to how you were, thus you are constantly being "reborn" into a new "configuration", but only through a gradual, cohesive type of process. There are no instantaneous, discontinuitous, or uncaused events. All physical reality flows.

Thank you James, that sums it up really well what I was thinking. I understand the mathematics is not that hard - I have it internalized at present and I intend on externalizing it. The splitting off of us into exact duplicates is a bit more difficult for me to imagine but I imagine the externalization of the mathematics can shed light on that. Hopefully I am fully interpreting you correctly.

Aren't we all?! and baffled with it at the same time ~~ all a part of learning.

I did not really know where to put this post - I hope the Sandbox is OK.

I think that the sandbox is okay. I think that it could have also gone into religion but maybe from my point of view philosophy even more so.

For a long time I thought that the spirit and soul were the same thing . . . A few years ago I was told that they were not . . .

May I ask who told you differently? But you needn't respond.

The explanation I received a few years ago went something like this . . . the body is the soul and the spirit is its driving force . . .

I cannot agree with this but who knows. The soul to me is part of the psyche or is the psyche but its driving force may be in part the spirit along with other influences which incite and animate the spirit which also animate the body.(emotions, moods) But I do not mean at the moment of conception. It's all part of the mind/body relationship.

Today I think I received a better description - so here I place my initial interpretation for criticism.

The way I understand it we have a physical body which I learnt many years ago could be bought from a chemical supply shop for very cheap - I think it was less than one hundred dollars. The physical body needs to be animated somehow - a problem that I am led to believe science is still struggling with.

I thought that it was even less than that. But remember one thing: Science has not as yet found a way to house the brain and in turn the mind without the body as the receptacle. So the body is important. The way in which you just described the physical body needing to be animated reminded me of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.

Now I am guessing that the soul has something to do with this physical body being animated . . .. . . but what I have interpreted is that the soul is the seat of the consciousness.

This is ALSO the christian or catholic view. At the moment of conception, the soul enters the body, for them.

Is this correct? The soul is the seat of the consciousness.

Hmm...this does make you want to bang your head against the wall, doesn't it ~~ at least figuratively speaking it does.Consciousness as awareness, self-awareness, "what is it like to be me" et cetera?I prefer the word psyche to soul because many believe that the soul lives on but we can't know this.

Psyche[sahy-kee] Spell Syllablesnoun

1.Classical Mythology. a personification of the soul, which in the form of a beautiful girl was loved by Eros.2.(lowercase) the human soul, spirit, or mind.3.(lowercase) [color=#400080][b]Psychology, Psychoanalysis. the mental or psychological structure of a person, especially as a motive force.4.Neoplatonism. the second emanation of the One, regarded as a universal consciousness and as the animating principle of the world.

I suppose one can say that the soul or psyche is the seat of consciousness.I don't want to muddy the waters here but perhaps the psyche and human consciousness sit side by side. They are influenced by one another, both positively and negatively.

...."The present work suggests that, rather than hoping for a putative unique marker – the neural correlate of consciousness – a more mature view of conscious processing should consider that it relates to a brain-scale distributed pattern of coherent brain activation," explained neuroscientist Lionel Naccache, one of the authors of the paper"...https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 201459.htm

28 Days: The baby’s muscles are developing. Her arm and leg buds are visible, and her first neocortical cells appear. The neocortex is the seat of complex thinking and reasoning, and it is present in no other mammal.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Aren't we all? and baffled with it at the same time ~~ all a part of learning.

I am not sure if all of us are - there are a number of things that baffle me - yes all a part of learning.

Arcturus Descending wrote:I think that the sandbox is okay. I think that it could have also gone into religion but maybe from my point of view philosophy even more so.

I think the Sandbox is the best place - Religion is too aggressive for me and I am not here to preach to anyone. Why do you say philosophy even more?

Arcturus Descending wrote:May I ask who told you differently? But you needn't respond.

Some Christian friends - lets just leave it at that shall we?

Arcturus Descending wrote:I cannot agree with this but who knows. The soul to me is part of the psyche or is the psyche but its driving force may be in part the spirit along with other influences which incite and animate the spirit. which also animate the body. But I do not mean at the moment of conception. It's all part of the mind/body relationship.

I cannot not agree on it either. But that is the beauty of freedom of speech I guess.

Arcturus Descending wrote:I thought that it was even less than that. But remember one thing: Science has not as yet found a way to house the brain and in turn the mind without the body as the receptacle. So the body is important. The way in which you just described the physical body needing to be animated reminded me of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.

Cooooooooooool!

Frankenstein!

Arcturus Descending wrote:This is ALSO the christian or catholic view. At the moment of conception, the soul enters the body, for them.

I like the seat of the consciousness. Institutionalized religion can believe what it wants as far as I am concerned. I am no part of this world.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Hmm...this does make you want to bang your head against the wall, doesn't it ~~ at least figuratively speaking it does.Consciousness as awareness, self-awareness, "what is it like to be me" et cetera?I prefer the word psyche to soul because many believe that the soul lives on but we can't know this.

Let me tell you a little secret - I directed the question at one person in particular - because that person had the idea I liked the best. Until I received that idea I was banging my head against a brick wall - sometimes I wanted to defenestrate myself.

I would never do either of those things. One of my passions is the consciousness.

Arcturus Descending wrote:I suppose one can say that the soul or psyche is the seat of consciousness. I don't want to muddy the waters here but perhaps the psyche and human consciousness sit side by side. They are influenced by one another, both positively and negatively.

I do say it is the seat of consciousness. Don't worry about the waters - you are free to say whatever you want, I think. My waters will remain clear.

Arcturus Descending wrote:There we go. As you can see, you may be the teacher here and me the student.

Arcturus Descending wrote:...."The present work suggests that, rather than hoping for a putative unique marker – the neural correlate of consciousness – a more mature view of conscious processing should consider that it relates to a brain-scale distributed pattern of coherent brain activation," explained neuroscientist Lionel Naccache, one of the authors of the paper"...https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 201459.htm

28 Days: The baby’s muscles are developing. Her arm and leg buds are visible, and her first neocortical cells appear. The neocortex is the seat of complex thinking and reasoning, and it is present in no other mammal.

That is pretty interesting - I have good reason to believe differently.

Arcturus Descending ~~Aren't we all? and baffled with it at the same time ~~ all a part of learning.

I am not sure if all of us are - there are a number of things that baffle me - yes all a part of learning.

Perhaps those who are not so baffled are those who do not take the time to question their beliefs.Of course, I do realize that those who have clear knowledge ~~ facts ~~ are not so baffled insofar as those things go.

I think the Sandbox is the best place - Religion is too aggressive for me and I am not here to preach to anyone. Why do you say philosophy even more?

The Sandbox is cool if we can keep in mind what a sandbox is for. But even children in sandboxes argue ~ "Hey, that sand is mine. That's my mud pie. Leave it alone." And then comes the slinging of the mud and sand.

I agree with you that religion can be too aggressive. Why do YOU think that is so? I have my own reasons.I think that for me Philosophy can be the best place for a discussion of the soul because anything which we say about it cannot be absolute or written in stone...just like the God concept cannot be.Just for the record, I do not have to believe in God, at least certainly not the God of most, in order to have a discussion about God. God may be real to people but God is also a concept!

If a discussion starts out on the soul and is based on religious belief, already it becomes biased albeit it is still a discussion about the soul.Philosophy is about seeking out the truth of things and wisdom. That can be about the road less travelled, not the one which has not usually been traveled within the mind - beliefs.

Arcturus Descending:May I ask who told you differently? But you needn't respond.

Some Christian friends - lets just leave it at that shall we?

With Pleasure.

Arcturus DescendingI cannot agree with this but who knows. The soul to me is part of the psyche or is the psyche but its driving force may be in part the spirit along with other influences which incite and animate the spirit. which also animate the body. But I do not mean at the moment of conception. It's all part of the mind/body relationship.

I cannot not agree on it either. But that is the beauty of freedom of speech I guess.

Oh, how I do enjoy playing in the sandbox with you, encode_decode. That I think is a very good answer. Keeping an open mind. I don't know if we could ever get to some sort of conclusion where the soul is concerned. Some of us decide to detach, let go, have faith and just believe what they choose. That's fine. Some of us withhold judgment remaining highly curious and imagining, pondering, musing. ~ living in negative capability. I love that expression, Keats. Thank you.

The way in which you just described the physical body needing to be animated reminded me of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.

Cooooooooooool!

It made me laugh.

This is ALSO the christian or catholic view. At the moment of conception, the soul enters the body, for them.

I like the seat of the consciousness. Institutionalized religion can believe what it wants as far as I am concerned. I am no part of this world.

Do not misunderstand me. That is not my way of thinking. I was simply giving you another viewpoint.

AD wrote: Consciousness as awareness, self-awareness, "what is it like to be me" et cetera?I prefer the word psyche to soul because many believe that the soul lives on but we can't know this.

Let me tell you a little secret - I directed the question at one person in particular - because that person had the idea I liked the best. Until I received that idea I was banging my head against a brick wall - sometimes I wanted to defenestrate myself.

You mean that the body is the soul and the spirit is its driving force . . .?I kind of think that expressing it in that way removes the soul, let's say human soul, from being something more ethereal or non corporeal - though not necessarily eternal.The brain and body are inter-connected ~~ the former resides within the later obviously but I personally still wouldn't express it that way - that the body is the soul unless you are saying that the soul somehow took up residence in the brain. There are many intangibles within the brain, right?It does boggle my mind though and it will continue to.

I don't want to muddy the waters here but perhaps the psyche and human consciousness sit side by side. They are influenced by one another, both positively and negatively.

I do say it is the seat of consciousness. Don't worry about the waters - you are free to say whatever you want, I think. My waters will remain clear.

So you are saying that the soul is the seat of consciousness? Well, if we can say psyche I can agree. But then again, can we even be sure of that at this time? Have the scientists reached a fair conclusion about it? You would probably know more about that than I would.Do we know enough about both to even come to that conclusion? I'm hesitant about doing that.IF the [human] soul does reside *somewhere* within the brain, then perhaps it may. There was a time when I intuited that my soul was somewhere outside my body, about a foot or so all around it. LOLMuddy waters.

As far as muddying waters, I do think that sometimes that could be a good thing. This is not directed at you per se because I do understand and admire your need for clarity but I think that universally speaking, what would appear to be clear waters at times is not so clear at all. We do not like to disturb those waters. But that's just the way I feel.

There we go. As you can see, you may be the teacher here and me the student. I don't think so - no one listens to me.

I can't hear you. I can only read you.Anyway, stop fishing for compliments.

We are all the students and all the teachers at different times.What do you think it is most important to be?

I think that when it comes to the intangibles in life, we all need to be a bit more skeptical and agnostic instead of automatically assuming and presuming that we have all of the answers simply because these answers put us in a comfort zone that is not built with bricks but really just built with wispy feathers...though wispy feathers can be quite beautiful!

Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.

“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”

You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Perhaps those who are not so baffled are those who do not take the time to question their beliefs.Of course, I do realize that those who have clear knowledge ~~ facts ~~ are not so baffled insofar as those things go.

I think a few of my circuits have just been fried . . .

Arcturus Descending wrote:The Sandbox is cool if we can keep in mind what a sandbox is for. But even children in sandboxes argue ~ "Hey, that sand is mine."

I did not really know where to put this post - I hope the Sandbox is OK.

For a long time I thought that the spirit and soul were the same thing . . . A few years ago I was told that they were not . . .The explanation I received a few years ago went something like this . . . the body is the soul and the spirit is its driving force . . .

Today I think I received a better description - so here I place my initial interpretation for criticism.

The way I understand it we have a physical body which I learnt many years ago could be bought from a chemical supply shop for very cheap - I think it was less than one hundred dollars. The physical body needs to be animated somehow - a problem that I am led to believe science is still struggling with.

Now I am guessing that the soul has something to do with this physical body being animated . . .. . . but what I have interpreted is that the soul is the seat of the consciousness.

Is this correct? The soul is the seat of the consciousness.

I am your student.

There are so many words and interpretations roaming around about all these terms that one is bound to confuse. Unfortunately, western philosophy got it all wrong from the very beginning and still happily continuing with it. It is not the case that the right version is not available. Actually, it is available since even before the beginning of the western philosophy. But, intellectuals do not want to look at the right place.

If you want to look for the right versions, i would suggest you to go through the basic tenants of Buddhism because it is the most popular and acceptable in the west. That would be enough to get at least the basics right. There is one more book available about these issues in the name of YOG VASISTHYA, which was originally written by sage Vasisthya, though its language may be some confusing to some people. The right answers is also available in islamic literature but i am not suggesting it because of present intruded perception. And for some valid circumstantial reasons, christianity did not go into such depths as to give enough clarity.

Or, you can ignore my suggestion altogether considering it a philosophically naivety and also me as a stupid religious person. The choice is very much yours. But, believe me, you would not get any right answers in the whole ambient of the western philosophy.

Thank you sanjay. I am still learning about this stuff. I am your student.

zinnat wrote:There are so many words and interpretations roaming around about all these terms that one is bound to confuse. Unfortunately, western philosophy got it all wrong from the very beginning and still happily continuing with it. It is not the case that the right version is not available. Actually, it is available since even before the beginning of the western philosophy. But, intellectuals do not want to look at the right place.

Believe me, I am quite confused about all of this. Western philosophy has gotten many things wrong. Science is one way to look at things but it is not the only way - nor do I believe a complete way. As much as I love science, I also detest it for its innate ability to strip me of my spirituality.

zinnat wrote:If you want to look for the right versions, i would suggest you to go through the basic tenants of Buddhism because it is the most popular and acceptable in the west. That would be enough to get at least the basics right.

I have looked at some Buddhism - a more in depth look should do me the world of good.

zinnat wrote:There is one more book available about these issues in the name of YOG VASISTHYA, which was originally written by sage Vasisthya, though its language may be some confusing to some people. The right answers is also available in islamic literature but i am not suggesting it because of present intruded perception.

I will certainly be taking a look at the book you suggested: YOG VASISTHYA. I understand your thoughts about islamic literature.

zinnat wrote:And for some valid circumstantial reasons, Christianity did not go into such depths as to give enough clarity.

So true, in fact I received a distorted version from Christianity.

zinnat wrote:Or, you can ignore my suggestion altogether considering it a philosophically naivety and also me as a stupid religious person. The choice is very much yours. But, believe me, you would not get any right answers in the whole ambient of the western philosophy.

I think closing ones mind is a philosophically naivety. I am a religious person too, so that makes two of us. First I will take a look at YOG VASISTHYA - this sounds like the most interesting suggestion that you have made.

Our personal efforts can be used to make us better - to fear a fate imposed by a god is to fear something that we do not understand properly.

I do not consider myself competent enough to have a student. Yes, i can provide some help in understanding the basics. I myself is a learner.

encode_decode wrote:Western philosophy has gotten many things wrong

Yes, especially after Hume, because it became hugely bias towards one side instead of exploring the truth objectively.

encode_decode wrote: Science is one way to look at things but it is not the only way

Science is fine in its strict sense, which is the physical verification of philosophical premises. The problem arises only when a scientist tries to philosophize and start predicting, and then also claims that he is doing science. That is the actual problem. Science is not supposed to predict. Yes, it can explore and experiment what actually works on the ground and what not. Assumptions fall under the jurisdiction of philosophy, not science.

My problem with people like Stephan Hawkins is not that they put fantasy theories forth. Everyone has right to do that. The real issue is that they do so in the name of science which gives a whole wrong perception across that all that would become true one day for sure.

encode_decode wrote:I have looked at some Buddhism - a more in depth look should do me the world of good.

It answers the question which you asked in this thread. I think wiki pages would be enough. I am not an expert in Buddhism either. But i am still sure that If you still find any trouble there, perhaps i would be able to provide some help, at least in the basics.

encode_decode wrote:I will certainly be taking a look at the book you suggested: YOG VASISTHYA.

My guess is that you can find this book online free of cost if you try.

I generally avoid suggesting this because of two reasons. Firstly is misrepresentation and secondly because of its limited availability in the English language.

encode_decode wrote:So true, in fact I received a distorted version from Christianity.

Christianity is less distorted than incomplete. Moses talked about subtle and finer issues but Jews hugely misused him for vested interests. Jesus did not want to commit the same mistake again thus kept Christianity as simple as possible in layman's terms, which was need of the hour also.

WendyDarling wrote:Yes, it is the seat of consciousness and houses your long term memories.

Let's say for argument's sake, that the soul (IF there is indeed a soul) IS the seat of consciousness.

Let's say for argument's sake that there IS a thing such as reincarnation.

If this so-called soul does house our long-term memories, then it is not doing such a great job since we do not remember our past lives when our respective souls are again put into this thing we call a body.Any investigation into past lives have never been proven and memories can be created and manipulated. Many of us would like nothing more than to have come from particular previous glorious lives.

Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.

“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”

You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Let's say for argument's sake, that the soul (IF there is indeed a soul) IS the seat of consciousness.

Let's say for argument's sake that there IS a thing such as reincarnation.

If this so-called soul does house our long-term memories, then it is not doing such a great job since we do not remember our past lives when our respective souls are again put into this thing we call a body.Any investigation into past lives have never been proven and memories can be created and manipulated. Many of us would like nothing more than to have come from particular previous glorious lives.

He is right but perhaps not aware of the whole of mechanism.

Humans (and all other living beings also) are manifold entity instead of a single one. Put simply, there are two entities living together in this body, one outer and one inner. This inner entity is called by many different names like soul etc. Both of these entities have separate mind and bodies. Both of these minds are connected and influence each other. This is how everyone human's mind gets his/her initial nature, which is the reflection of the mind of the soul. Then, the soul mind learns during this human lifespan through its human counterpart and carries those developments along with it after the death of human body and mind, which is the very purpose of a human life.

But, there is a catch here. As a thumb rule, there is only one way traffic of influence between the two minds, which is from inner to outer one. Inner mind has complete access to the outer mind but there is no such facility available to the outer mind. It cannot know what is stored in its counterpart. Means, soul mind knows all what human minds now but human mind does not know anything is in soul mind.

The memories of all past lives is stored in soul mind, not human mind. Yes, if human mind can somehow access to its counterpart, it also can know about past lives of soul. That may happen accidentally or by effort also but it is also a herculean task. The purpose of this arrangement is to make soul mind learns through the what human mind experiences during every human life. If human mind also knows about what has been happened in the past lives, it would never able to learn in true sense.

Arcturus Descending Perhaps those who are not so baffled are those who do not take the time to question their beliefs.Of course, I do realize that those who have clear knowledge ~~ facts ~~ are not so baffled insofar as those things go.

I think a few of my circuits have just been fried . . .

I hope that they used extra virgin olive for that. Mmmm yummy.I would like some steamed Chinese vegetables with that please.

Arcturus Descending"]The Sandbox is cool if we can keep in mind what a sandbox is for. But even children in sandboxes argue ~ "Hey, that sand is mine."

What is a sandbox used for? How do you figure that sand is yours?

A sandbox is used for "Getting to know you...getting to know all about you..." say the children.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Let's say for argument's sake, that the soul (IF there is indeed a soul) IS the seat of consciousness.

Let's say for argument's sake that there IS a thing such as reincarnation.

If this so-called soul does house our long-term memories, then it is not doing such a great job since we do not remember our past lives when our respective souls are again put into this thing we call a body.Any investigation into past lives have never been proven and memories can be created and manipulated. Many of us would like nothing more than to have come from particular previous glorious lives.

He is right but perhaps not aware of the whole of mechanism.

Humans (and all other living beings also) are manifold entity instead of a single one. Put simply, there are two entities living together in this body, one outer and one inner. This inner entity is called by many different names like soul etc. Both of these entities have separate mind and bodies. Both of these minds are connected and influence each other. This is how everyone human's mind gets his/her initial nature, which is the reflection of the mind of the soul. Then, the soul mind learns during this human lifespan through its human counterpart and carries those developments along with it after the death of human body and mind, which is the very purpose of a human life.

But, there is a catch here. As a thumb rule, there is only one way traffic of influence between the two minds, which is from inner to outer one. Inner mind has complete access to the outer mind but there is no such facility available to the outer mind. It cannot know what is stored in its counterpart. Means, soul mind knows all what human minds now but human mind does not know anything is in soul mind.

The memories of all past lives is stored in soul mind, not human mind. Yes, if human mind can somehow access to its counterpart, it also can know about past lives of soul. That may happen accidentally or by effort also but it is also a herculean task. The purpose of this arrangement is to make soul mind learns through the what human mind experiences during every human life. If human mind also knows about what has been happened in the past lives, it would never able to learn in true sense.

with love,sanjay

I am in complete agreement. I've said the same things with different word arrangements, but nobody here believes or understands my meanings in the slightest, well until now...you. It is a Hurculean task and possible, but with help to complete the transition. I never was able to transition without help, but I do not know where the help came from? Have you separated your inner mind from your outer mind?

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

Let's say for argument's sake, that the soul (IF there is indeed a soul) IS the seat of consciousness.

Let's say for argument's sake that there IS a thing such as reincarnation.

If this so-called soul does house our long-term memories, then it is not doing such a great job since we do not remember our past lives when our respective souls are again put into this thing we call a body.Any investigation into past lives have never been proven and memories can be created and manipulated. Many of us would like nothing more than to have come from particular previous glorious lives.zinnat: He is right but perhaps not aware of the whole of mechanism.

Who is he, zinnat?

Humans (and all other living beings also) are manifold entity instead of a single one. Put simply, there are two entities living together in this body, one outer and one inner. This inner entity is called by many different names like soul etc. Both of these entities have separate mind and bodies. Both of these minds are connected and influence each other. This is how everyone human's mind gets his/her initial nature, which is the reflection of the mind of the soul. Then, the soul mind learns during this human lifespan through its human counterpart and carries those developments along with it after the death of human body and mind, which is the very purpose of a human life.

But, there is a catch here. As a thumb rule, there is only one way traffic of influence between the two minds, which is from inner to outer one. Inner mind has complete access to the outer mind but there is no such facility available to the outer mind. It cannot know what is stored in its counterpart. Means, soul mind knows all what human minds now but human mind does not know anything is in soul mind.

The memories of all past lives is stored in soul mind, not human mind. Yes, if human mind can somehow access to its counterpart, it also can know about past lives of soul. That may happen accidentally or by effort also but it is also a herculean task. The purpose of this arrangement is to make soul mind learns through the what human mind experiences during every human life.

I am sorry to say that most of this sounds more like Dissociative Identity Disorder to me than anything else, zinnat.

As for the below...

If human mind also knows about what has been happened in the past lives, it would never able to learn in true sense.

I have also heard of that explanation -- I call it more of an excuse THAN actually not remembering.

But if that even could be true - I do not believe in reincarnation/past lives - though there was a time when I had my musings about it -it might just depend on the INDIVIDUAL him/her -self.

Some of us never learn from our past experiences In This Life. We do not take the time to reflect on them, try to learn from them, from our mistakes and their consequences. We simply are not interested in becoming *more*, learning to know ourselves. We choose not to examine our lives, our journey, to learn.We are just plain lazy.

Perhaps that perspective in quotes is simply one gained and adapted from observations made in this Life.

Aside from that, I find no reason why remembering/knowing/understanding our past lives (if we had them) would be a stumbling block for more personal human evolution and growth. We would just have to work on it.

Tell me, how would that keep someone from learning. Give me an example.

Some of our lives are tragic and chaotic, we feel shame, disgrace, guilt but we can still learn from that, transcend that, come to understand that some things just do not have answers.We may, in fact, come from out of past lives, but to me they are still a part of this one singular life.

The way I look at it, the perspective you used - that others believe - is just a way to sweep under the carpet the fact that we just cannot know many things for the most part -- they are just too unexplainable -- so we say something like that.

Perhaps Rilke's words come home to roost here...

“Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”

I love these so-profound words of his. Why do we always have to force the answers to fill in the gaps?

Reincarnation cannot be proven either way. But what might be proven to self is WHY we choose to accept something that there is just no evidence for...though we cannot help ourselves at times. It is a part of our default human natures.Believing things does not necessarily make them So.

WendyDarling wrote:I am in complete agreement. I've said the same things with different word arrangements, but nobody here believes or understands my meanings in the slightest,

Why should anyone believe you?

There are only two ways to prove anything, either by such evidence which can be confirm by anyone or by reasoning, but the reasoning should be without any doubt.

well until now...you. It is a Hurculean task and possible, but with help to complete the transition. I never was able to transition without help, but I do not know where the help came from?

Help certainly comes in one way or another when one becomes eligible and needs it the most.

Have you separated your inner mind from your outer mind?

To some extent yes, but the process is still not in my complete control. I cannot do it at my will. I have to make a lot of effort to make it happen, but still that situation lasts for few minutes only.

Arcturus Descending wrote:I am sorry to say that most of this sounds more like Dissociative Identity Disorder to me than anything else, zinnat.

You may say so.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Some of us never learn from our past experiences In This Life. We do not take the time to reflect on them, try to learn from them, from our mistakes and their consequences. We simply are not interesting in becoming *more*, learning to know ourselves. We choose not to examine our lives, our journey, to learn.We are just plain lazy.

We all invariably learn from our experiences. We cannot stop learning even if we want. Yes, we may or may not realize this learning. Laziness does not come in the way of learning in any way. Secondly, the learning is meant for soul(subconscious) mind only, which keeps leaning all the time through circumstances and experiences by default. Thirdly, we all use or rather have to learn different things, not the same.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Aside from that, I find no reason why remembering/knowing/understanding our past lives (if we had them) would be a stumbling block for more personal human evolution and growth. We would just have to work on it.

Tell me, how would that keep someone from learning. Give me an example.

The actual problem with the remembrance of the past lives is less with past lives but more with what else is stored in the soul(subconscious) mind. Remembrance of the past lives will only create confusions regarding relations. But remember, the soul life is not about only its human incarnations. Besides it, it has its own life which far longer that humans and operates in a different dimension too. If humans become aware of that anyhow, they will never able to learn ever.

Arcturus Descending wrote:The way I look at it, the perspective you used - that others believe - is just a way to sweep under the carpet the fact that we just cannot know many things for the most part -- they are just too explainable -- so we say something like that.

WendyDarling wrote:I am in complete agreement. I've said the same things with different word arrangements, but nobody here believes or understands my meanings in the slightest,

Why should anyone believe you?

There are only two ways to prove anything, either by such evidence which can be confirm by anyone or by reasoning, but the reasoning should be without any doubt.

well until now...you. It is a Hurculean task and possible, but with help to complete the transition. I never was able to transition without help, but I do not know where the help came from?

Help certainly comes in one way or another when one becomes eligible and needs it the most.

Have you separated your inner mind from your outer mind?

To some extent yes, but the process is still not in my complete control. I cannot do it at my will. I have to make a lot of effort to make it happen, but still that situation lasts for few minutes only.

with love,sanjay

What does to some extent mean? I don't understand what you are doing. What exactly do you accomplish for a few minutes and what do you witness?

It took me years to figure out what I needed to do to make my projection happen. I wasted a lot of time and effort trying to understand what the right conditions needed to be and the conditions need to be ideal.

I am told that there are different types of separations such as remote viewing versus a complete astral projection. Some folks even consider lucid dreams a form of the soul separating, but I do not. I am able to do a complete separation rather than a remote viewing.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

Arc wrote:I think that when it comes to the intangibles in life we all need to be a bit more skeptical and agnostic instead of automatically assuming and presuming that we have all of the answers simply because these answers put us in a comfort zone that is not built with bricks but really just built with wispy feathers

I completely agree but even with the best will in the world it can be hard to achieve. I would like to end my life being absolutely certain of nothing but I do not know if my mind could take it that far. Being human does not exactly help because sometimes I am prone to thinking emotionally rather than logically. Nevertheless I have made some progress in the last seven years since I first started learning which is good but I do not want to become complacent as there is so much more to be done